VirtuAnalytics

Novel Insights Through Data & Analysis

Virtua Fighter 5 REVO · v1.10 · Character Matchup Winrates

El Blaze vs Goh

The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,712
Win rate54.0%
Widest swing-5.2 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Breakable full fence57.8%+3.80.250199
Single wall57.4%+3.40.357162
Octagon57.1%+3.10.406163
Open56.0%+2.00.588168
Fence and open55.0%+1.00.87160 ·
Breakable half fence54.9%+0.90.793173
Full fence53.5%-0.50.895185
Rectangle51.7%-2.20.499201
Low fence49.4%-4.60.220160
Half fence48.8%-5.20.162162
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.45 on 9 df, p 0.695

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence53.5%185-4.30.399+4.70.377-1.40.791+4.10.443-3.90.467-1.50.841-2.40.646+1.80.728-3.50.507
Breakable full fence+4.30.39957.8%199+9.00.087+2.90.577+8.40.112+0.40.942+2.80.702+1.80.723+6.00.224+0.70.888
Half fence-4.70.377-9.00.08748.8%162-6.10.260-0.60.913-8.60.119-6.20.409-7.20.191-3.00.573-8.30.134
Breakable half fence+1.40.791-2.90.577+6.10.26054.9%173+5.50.312-2.50.646-0.10.991-1.00.847+3.20.540-2.10.693
Low fence-4.10.443-8.40.112+0.60.913-5.50.31249.4%160-8.00.149-5.60.457-6.60.233-2.40.655-7.70.167
Single wall+3.90.467-0.40.942+8.60.119+2.50.646+8.00.14957.4%162+2.40.748+1.50.790+5.70.281+0.30.949
Fence and open+1.50.841-2.80.702+6.20.409+0.10.991+5.60.457-2.40.74855.0%60-0.90.899+3.30.657-2.10.784
Open+2.40.646-1.80.723+7.20.191+1.00.847+6.60.233-1.50.790+0.90.89956.0%168+4.20.419-1.10.840
Rectangle-1.80.728-6.00.224+3.00.573-3.20.540+2.40.655-5.70.281-3.30.657-4.20.41951.7%201-5.30.312
Octagon+3.50.507-0.70.888+8.30.134+2.10.693+7.70.167-0.30.949+2.10.784+1.10.840+5.30.31257.1%163
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted1,498
Win rate53.5%
Widest swing-5.5 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Octagon57.9%+4.40.275140
Breakable full fence57.4%+3.90.268176
Open57.2%+3.80.364131
Single wall55.6%+2.10.598144
Breakable half fence54.8%+1.30.729157
Fence and open53.7%+0.20.97254 ·
Rectangle52.0%-1.50.665179
Full fence51.0%-2.50.514153
Half fence49.7%-3.80.332145
Low fence48.0%-5.50.159146
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.45 on 9 df, p 0.695

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence51.0%153-6.40.245+1.30.819-3.80.503+3.00.600-4.60.430-2.70.731-6.30.291-1.00.859-6.90.238
Breakable full fence+6.40.24557.4%176+7.70.167+2.60.632+9.40.091+1.80.742+3.70.633+0.10.981+5.40.304-0.50.933
Half fence-1.30.819-7.70.16749.7%145-5.10.373+1.70.770-5.90.315-4.00.611-7.60.207-2.30.680-8.20.165
Breakable half fence+3.80.503-2.60.632+5.10.37354.8%157+6.80.234-0.80.892+1.10.891-2.50.674+2.80.605-3.10.593
Low fence-3.00.600-9.40.091-1.70.770-6.80.23448.0%146-7.60.195-5.80.470-9.30.122-4.00.472-9.90.093
Single wall+4.60.430-1.80.742+5.90.315+0.80.892+7.60.19555.6%144+1.90.816-1.70.777+3.60.519-2.30.696
Fence and open+2.70.731-3.70.633+4.00.611-1.10.891+5.80.470-1.90.81653.7%54-3.50.658+1.70.822-4.20.601
Open+6.30.291-0.10.981+7.60.207+2.50.674+9.30.122+1.70.777+3.50.65857.2%131+5.30.355-0.60.920
Rectangle+1.00.859-5.40.304+2.30.680-2.80.605+4.00.472-3.60.519-1.70.822-5.30.35552.0%179-5.90.293
Octagon+6.90.238+0.50.933+8.20.165+3.10.593+9.90.093+2.30.696+4.20.601+0.60.920+5.90.29357.9%140
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗
Matches counted214
Win rate57.5%
Widest swing-16.3 pts
Survive correction0
Period2026/03/26 – 2026/09/23

Where it was fought

El Blaze's win rate on each stage, against this matchup everywhere
StageStage effectWin %ChangepMatches
Single wall72.2%+14.70.18618 ·
Fence and open66.7%+9.20.6446 ·
Full fence65.6%+8.10.31232 ·
Low fence64.3%+6.80.59414 ·
Breakable full fence60.9%+3.40.72823 ·
Breakable half fence56.2%-1.20.91816 ·
Octagon52.2%-5.30.58623 ·
Open51.4%-6.10.40737 ·
Rectangle50.0%-7.50.45422 ·
Half fence41.2%-16.30.15717 ·
p < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested
The same figures as a 1080×1080 card, for posting. Click it to copy the image. Full size ↗

Stage against stage

El Blaze's win rate on the row's stage, minus the same on the column's

All ten shapes at once: chi-square 6.23 on 9 df, p 0.717

StageFullBreak. fullHalfBreak. halfLowWallMixedOpenRectOct
Full fence65.6%32+4.80.718+24.40.100+9.40.527+1.30.930-6.60.631-1.10.961+14.30.231+15.60.251+13.40.315
Breakable full fence-4.80.71860.9%23+19.70.218+4.60.773-3.40.835-11.30.447-5.80.794+9.50.471+10.90.463+8.70.552
Half fence-24.40.100-19.70.21841.2%17-15.10.387-23.10.200-31.00.064-25.50.283-10.20.487-8.80.584-11.00.491
Breakable half fence-9.40.527-4.60.773+15.10.38756.2%16-8.00.654-16.00.331-10.40.658+4.90.743+6.20.703+4.10.802
Low fence-1.30.930+3.40.835+23.10.200+8.00.65464.3%14-7.90.631-2.40.919+12.90.407+14.30.400+12.10.471
Single wall+6.60.631+11.30.447+31.00.064+16.00.331+7.90.63172.2%18+5.50.795+20.90.141+22.20.154+20.10.192
Fence and open+1.10.961+5.80.794+25.50.283+10.40.658+2.40.919-5.50.79566.7%6+15.30.485+16.70.468+14.50.525
Open-14.30.231-9.50.471+10.20.487-4.90.743-12.90.407-20.90.141-15.30.48551.4%37+1.40.920-0.80.951
Rectangle-15.60.251-10.90.463+8.80.584-6.20.703-14.30.400-22.20.154-16.70.468-1.40.92050.0%22-2.20.884
Octagon-13.40.315-8.70.552+11.00.491-4.10.802-12.10.471-20.10.192-14.50.525+0.80.951+2.20.88452.2%23
Better on the row's stage — deeper at 5 and 10 pointsBetter on the column's stagep < 0.05 on its ownStill there after correcting for how many were tested· fewer than 80 decided matches on one side of the comparison
How significance is decided
  • Each gap is two win rates compared with a pooled two-proportion z test, over decided matches only.
  • The 95% interval is Newcombe's hybrid score method, which keeps its shape near 0% and 100% where a symmetric interval does not.
  • q is p corrected for how many tests were asked at once, by Benjamini–Hochberg at a 5% false discovery rate. A figure is called real on q, never on p alone.
  • Standard errors are widened by a measured design effect, because one player appears in many matches and those matches are not independent of each other.
  • Stages are assigned at random, so a gap between them is the stage's own effect and not a difference in who chose to play where.